Tuesday, December 14, 2010

What I Said, Only A Little Different

We were yacking about the second amendment yesterday, and today I went to Ann Althouse's house .... "Althouse" ... to see what it was that Morgan was talking about here ... and then I clicked a link that took me to a post where she was talking about what we were talking about yesterday.

Got all that?  Ann was doing something I try to do -- and that is, keep people from using the wrong arguments even if their conclusions are right.

Anyway, I further mused in the comments section of her blog.  A bit of a re-hash of my post from yesterday.  Somehow if we could combine that post (which was born as aa comment I'd left on Morgan's blog in the first place) and this comment I left at Ann's blog ... I think we'd have a pretty darned good post.

So ... the second amendment doesn't protect handguns because they're not mentioned. Got it.

It doesn't mention hunting or sport shooting, either -- so presumably those activities aren't protected by it either. But oddly, this is what lefties keep bringing up to "soothe" us.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "the right of the people to bear arms for militia purposes shall not be infringed."

It does have that introductory clause that provides one important justification -- but again, if you're really going to try to sell us on the fact that the second amendment means we can go sports shooting or hunting and yet we can't keep one for our defense or the defense of others -- let's just remember that the amendment doesn't mention either of those.

What the main clause of the amendment says is:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is very general because it is meant to be very general. It is a general right. If they only meant for us to be able to keep ... and BEAR them ... for a set of specific purposes, it would have listed those purposes.

Hunting, sports shooting, and self-defense were clearly understood to be covered, as we didn't immediately start defining those away as invalid. The militia clause can only be interpreted then as an additional, "oh, by the way, and we definitely mean THIS, too". As in "in addition to" what's generally understood.

1 comment:

tim said...

At the end of the day, I’ve never understood the Left’s quest for gun control. Why do they care that we go hunting or carry a side arm? I’m not suppose to care that the guy next to me is a Muslim or a mixed race, transgender, hermaphrodite, heroin addict with AIDS, what about the diversity of accepting a legally carried pistol?

I know, and I don’t have to bother looking it up, that the gun crimes committed in this country is by illegal gun owners, undocumented gun owners so to speak.

Do they actually believe that all guns could be rounded up and destroyed? Some guns (*cough*) are off the radar, so to speak, now for various and totally legal means. Do they not think we’d just be perfectly fine with breaking any potential gun control laws?

The half truth, distortions and outright lies behind the Left’s gun control lobby can only be explained by one thing - subjugation. They unwittingly place themselves on the side of those that our founding fathers brilliantly decided needed to be kept at bay by us common citizens through “keeping and bearing” arms.

Thankfully, there are a number of Lefty’s who want to own guns also.