- This topic has 111 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
bnw is framing the debate — or it was framed for him — in an extremist, radical way, that was considered on the edges of the fringe in America for more than two centuries. It was NOT a part of American jurisprudence to view the 2nd amendment as bestowing an individual right to own weapons or use them. It was, for two centuries, considered tied to membership in state militias, and only for those state militias. And, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “bear arms” referred to presentation of arms in a military context — not in the home, not for private citizens in their day to day lives.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
It is only due to a concerted, organized effort on the right to reinvent the 2nd amendment, pushed by the gun industry, that bnw’s wildly radical vision is even known by more than that fringe. The conservative judge, Earl Warren, called this right-wing movement to rewrite the SA “fraud.”
Tons of good articles on this subject:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller
For starters . . . .
Some more good articles on the way the right has massively distorted the meaning of the 2nd amendment, and why this has been done. Boiled down, it’s a corporate coup.
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
Another thing to consider: People who write these articles going against the far-right’s reinvention of the 2nd amendment virtually always receive multiple death threats. That is what they live with, simply by speaking truth to the power of the gun lobby and its fanboys. Part of the success of this radical right movement is that it has intimidated good people into silence — in the Media and in DC. I find the entire thing beyond despicable, and the people involved fascistic.
Edit: Was shocked to see Seth Meyer “going there” on his show. Perhaps the stranglehold of the NRA is loosening:
ZN,
That’s well said. I see it as “alien” too. Though I’d use stronger words. “Alien” is far too nice, IMO.
But, yeah, it’s definitely become “common” to see it posed as a “freedom versus tyranny” debate. Common, but still incredibly “alien.” Perhaps “irrational” is the better word?
Like, it’s incredibly “irrational” to push for massive spending cuts in the midst of a recession or weak recovery, but it is now the mainstream view in DC, even among establishment Dems — thanks primarily to the Tea Party and the folks who pull its strings. For forty plus years, at least, this was considered economic suicide by the vast majority of economists. But, today? It’s a part of the woodwork to believe this.
The ravings of Ayn Rand were once considered so irrational, so demented and hate-filled, they were basically laughed at and dismissed out of hand. Now, they, too, have gained a certain cache in the mainstream. Growing up in the 1960s and 70s, I never saw that coming, etc. etc.
bnw,
I provided several links that show the origins and history of the 2nd amendment, and how the right, led by the NRA, has radically reinvented that history out of whole cloth to suit its agenda. The history of guns in America is not the history as the right presents it. Nor was the 2nd amendment ever, ever meant to bestow citizens with an individual “right” to own guns outside of state militia contexts. We could do that prior to the 2nd amendment, and would be able to now without it. English common law established the right to self-defense, centuries ago, and the Brits did not change that in the colonies.
The 2nd amendment was solely to support the continuation of state militias, and the right it bestows only exists within that context. Within a context of something that no longer exists. It’s as if we were given a right to cook dodo birds, and they went extinct. That renders the right itself obsolete.
But we’ll never agree on the above, and I get that. We could go back and forth forever on the subject, and we’d get nowhere. So, I ask you to at least consider the following, so we can establish some common ground:
This is your original thesis:
Those that support the 2nd Amendment want freedom. Those that don’t support the 2nd Amendment want perceived safety. I see no middle ground.
Will you admit to the following, that this is our position?
1. We don’t see the 2nd amendment as meaning the same thing as you say it means. In fact, we’re light years away from each other on that.
2. We don’t associate support for the 2nd amendment as having anything to do with “freedom.” We don’t see “freedom” in the ownership, use or proliferation of guns. We don’t define “freedom” the way you do.
3. We don’t necessarily oppose the 2nd amendment. We just oppose your interpretation of that amendment. We see it as in error. Profoundly in error. We have a profound disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means.
4. Given that we don’t agree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or how “freedom” comes into play here, or the way “freedom” is defined . . . it makes no sense for you to set this up the way you do, as some kind of battle between the forces of “freedom” and those opposed to it.
Can we at least agree about that?
(To make it a little easier, I separated the two parts of the post)
This is your original thesis:
Those that support the 2nd Amendment want freedom. Those that don’t support the 2nd Amendment want perceived safety. I see no middle ground.
Will you admit to the following, that this is our position?
1. We don’t see the 2nd amendment as meaning the same thing as you say it means. In fact, we’re light years away from each other on that.
2. We don’t associate support for the 2nd amendment as having anything to do with “freedom.” We don’t see “freedom” in the ownership, use or proliferation of guns. We don’t define “freedom” the way you do.
3. We don’t necessarily oppose the 2nd amendment. We just oppose your interpretation of that amendment. We see it as in error. Profoundly in error. We have a profound disagreement about what the 2nd amendment means.
4. Given that we don’t agree on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, or how “freedom” comes into play here, or the way “freedom” is defined . . . it makes no sense for you to set this up the way you do, as some kind of battle between the forces of “freedom” and those opposed to it.
Can we at least agree about that?
And, please. Stop with the nonsense about “fearing freedom.” You and I disagree on the meaning of the word. Logic would dictate that you, realizing that, would stop trying to paint this as a battle between those who defend it and those who seek to take it away.
We don’t agree what “it” means.
In short, I am at LEAST as much in favor of freedom as you are, and as the recent political test showed, I am far more anti-authoritarian than you are. It’s not at all close. It’s never close between actual leftists and right-libertarians or conservatives. We consistently score higher on anti-authoritarian grounds than right-wingers.
So I’ll try one more time. Will you admit that this is not about your supposed defense of “freedom” and our supposed attempt to take it away? We don’t agree that “freedom” is even involved when it comes to guns, and we don’t agree about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. We’re in two separate universes on that score, and when it comes to the meaning of “freedom” and “liberty,” etc.
- The topic ‘The gun debate in my opinion boils down to’ is closed to new replies.
