The Best 2nd Amendment Article Ever?


PDA






Air,Land&Sea
December 30, 2005, 11:58 AM
Can anyone direct me to the best short and concise article, letter to the editor or op/ed ever written that defends the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I've written some good ones myself, but I'm just looking for the absolute best one ever that most fence sitters can casually read, understand and embrace. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Best 2nd Amendment Article Ever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hawk
December 30, 2005, 03:39 PM
My favorite: Kozinski (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1234860&postcount=4)

Flyboy
December 30, 2005, 03:54 PM
I'm quite fond of Jeff Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards."
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html (can't paste the text, it's too long).

Rembrandt
December 30, 2005, 04:03 PM
http://www.conservativenews.org/culture/archive/CUL19990316a.html

Charlton Heston's Harvard speech.....addresses more than the 2nd, says a great deal about America's culture.

Air,Land&Sea
December 30, 2005, 04:44 PM
Thank you very much.

Jim March
December 30, 2005, 06:20 PM
Snyder's work above is one of what I consider the two most important RKBA articles ever.

The other:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

tulsamal
December 30, 2005, 06:49 PM
You sometimes have a middle-of-the-road voter or even a slightly left voter ask you for an article about gun control, etc. I don't like to point them to the NRA site or even an obvious conservative site. They are just going to think that everything is somehow being distorted or lied about. In those cases, I like to send them to a Salon piece that appeared years ago. The author is a woman. She isn't a member of the NRA. She doesn't even own a gun. But she lays out a whole bunch of statistics that the gun control crowd would hope to avoid. There are some things she says that I don't agree with but overall it is really a super article to point the "undecideds" toward.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/index.html

It is titled: "When Liberals Lie About Guns."

It is multiple pages so be sure and click on the next link at the bottom of each page.

Gregg

GoRon
December 30, 2005, 07:54 PM
That salon article is excellent! Thanks.

geekWithA.45
December 31, 2005, 12:45 AM
California's Tom McClintock gave this great speech:

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_print.asp?PID=189

El Tejon
December 31, 2005, 09:27 AM
Just one? This is tough, but for a fencesitter, I would nominate:

Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale Law Journal 637 (1989). You can read it here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Anything by Halbrook is great but probably not best for a fencesitter. I can give you many other cites if you wish.

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 09:36 AM
I'm wiping my eyes right now.

El Tejon
December 31, 2005, 09:41 AM
ALS, I'm confused. Why are you whipping your eyes?

Whipping through the article? In interest or boredom?

I can give you other stuff if you want.

psyopspec
December 31, 2005, 10:21 AM
"Democrats and the Gun Issue: Now What?" by benEzra. Interesting read for fence sitters or all-out liberals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97165&mesg_id=97165

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 11:11 AM
ALS, I'm confused. Why are you whipping your eyes?

Whipping through the article? In interest or boredom?

I can give you other stuff if you want.

Because I'm so happy how you've all responded to my request.;) They're tears of joy.

El Tejon
December 31, 2005, 11:18 AM
*smacks head*

Oh, you mean "wipe", right? El Tejon, confused by a typo--hilarity ensues.:banghead:

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 11:26 AM
My mistake. Edited. Might purchase a gun today. Ordered a NAA .22LR Mini Revolver with the new boot grips. I know, but they're cool.

hugh damright
December 31, 2005, 01:12 PM
I think the Second Amendment is one thing and the RKBA is another.

If you want to support the individual RKBA, the right to CCW or shoot burglars or whatever, then there are lots of statistics which show that guns make us safer ... or you might talk about the fundamental right to self defense or that kind of thing.

And if you want to support the Second Amendment, then I think it becomes a matter of establishing that free government is superior to monarchy, and that free government requires an armed people.

But if you attempt to roll it all into one issue, and try to prove that the Second Amendment protects our individual right to CCW and shoot burglars or whatever, then I think you would no longer be pushing the RKBA or the Second Amendment but rather be pushing an extremist view of the 14th Amendment.

NorthernExtreme
December 31, 2005, 02:39 PM
Hugh,

If you use one to support the other I would agree. But if you support a limited view of one as a means of discrediting the other I would respectfully disagree.

Great references posted above, Thanks to all.

Regards,

geekWithA.45
December 31, 2005, 03:23 PM
Hugh, you're off topic for this thread.

Northern, don't goad him.

AZRickD
December 31, 2005, 03:38 PM
This is turning into a good collection.

On a slightly different note, here is one that explains why someone could be a pro-gun single-issue voter. Essentially, if the candidate is afraid of inanimate objects or if he doesn't want me to have one, the view cascades to several other key voting issues.

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?InfoNo=000059
Why is this issue such a touchstone for freedom lovers?

Even politicians who want to be known as “pro-gun” hate having to discuss the issue with reporters or be too specific, even with supporters. They hate it because it is an MRI into their character.

Justin
December 31, 2005, 04:39 PM
Imagine a World Without Guns (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml)

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 04:51 PM
I think the Second Amendment is one thing and the RKBA is another.

If you want to support the individual RKBA, the right to CCW or shoot burglars or whatever, then there are lots of statistics which show that guns make us safer ... or you might talk about the fundamental right to self defense or that kind of thing.

And if you want to support the Second Amendment, then I think it becomes a matter of establishing that free government is superior to monarchy, and that free government requires an armed people.

But if you attempt to roll it all into one issue, and try to prove that the Second Amendment protects our individual right to CCW and shoot burglars or whatever, then I think you would no longer be pushing the RKBA or the Second Amendment but rather be pushing an extremist view of the 14th Amendment.

I wonder if it is the same arguement; that maybe robbery, rape and murder are oppression and tyranny on a smaller scale. I'm armed either way so it doesn't matter much to me.

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 04:53 PM
Imagine a World Without Guns (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml)
I'm reading this to my John Lennon CD.

hugh damright
December 31, 2005, 05:35 PM
Hugh, you're off topic for this thread.

No I am not, Geekw/45, and I do not see "moderator" by your name.

The topic is the best 2nd Amendment article, in the body it said the best defense of the RKBA, I suggested that these were two different things, and I think that was perfectly on topic. I meant to be constructive, and you are off topic complaining about my post.

geekWithA.45
December 31, 2005, 06:46 PM
Hugh,

Considering that you didn't offer any articles as per the thread starters request, and that you actually did offer more of (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=171434) I think my claim is reasonable.

I'm not going to derail this thread any further, you wanna talk about it, take it to PM.

Air,Land&Sea
December 31, 2005, 09:09 PM
I respect no one's opinions higher than the Geek's. Hugh did bring up a thought provoking issue. Ain't no thing, gents. We're all on the same side. There's enough f***-ups to keep us all busy for life. Thanks again for the articles. I've printed them all and will start reading as soon as my hangover tomorrow subsides.

drinks
January 1, 2006, 12:22 AM
Hugh;
What DID you say?
Makes no sense at all to me.

Old Dog
January 1, 2006, 12:36 AM
Back to the original question ... I'd checked this thread out yesterday, thought about it for a bit, but soon realized there weren't really any good short 2nd Amendment essays ... so I'd have to go along with the guys who've submitted Snyder's A Nation of Cowards -- by far the single best essay in support of RKBA ever written (in my opinion).

geekWithA.45
January 2, 2006, 01:32 PM
any good SHORT essays...

That's the thing, isn't it?

If you don't already understand/accept the proposition that "the right of arms is a personal prerogative flowing directly from the right of self defense inherent in your existence, and protected by the various US & state constitutions", it gets real complicated, real quick.

Jim March
January 2, 2006, 10:52 PM
OK, here's the situation. Hugh is RIGHT in that in order to fully connect the 2nd Amendment to personal defense, you need to invoke the 14th Amendment.

Hugh is dead wrong in saying that it's "radical" to do so.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, the idea of banning personal defense guns was considered ludicrous. As best we can tell, the main thrust of the 2nd was to ensure that the most radical form of arms-bearing was protected: the right of groups of people to band together for armed defense when necessary.

This idea comes from how the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the second provision of which that granted rights to individual Englishmen said:

-------
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
-------

The most common way this got violated was with laws that prevented armed groups. This was and remains a serious concern and armed groups are the most radical form of arms-bearing possible, as shown in WA and AZ state RKBA clauses (same language):

-------
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
-------

That aside, it's possible to characterize the 2A as a "political right" similar to the right to jury duty and voting, and assigned at the time to the same group (basically white males).

Flash forward to the time of the Civil War and right afterwards.

Blacks recieved freedom with the 13th Amendment but didn't get equal protection or citizenship. Those were still denied by the 1856 Dred Scott decision, which basically said that since America had always been a racist nation even in colonial times and was a racist nation at the time of the founding, racist laws (not just pro-slavery laws) were legal. The decision was legally correct, morally reprehensible.

A portion of the Scott decision read:

------
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. [emphasis added]
------

Note the phrase "privileges and immunities" - it is used in Scott over 30 times and is fully defined in context as "the Bill Of Rights plus the traditional rights of free Englishmen" - note how in this paragraph, the right to "enter every other state...without pass or passport" is included, something NOT seen in the US Bill Of Rights.

The 14th Amendment is an interesting document. It gives blacks various civil rights but NOT political rights (such as voting and jury service). In this sense it basically relegates black males to the legal status of white women of the time.

Yet it bars states from denying blacks "the privileges and immunities of US citizenship" which per the US Supreme Court in Scott includes the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went":

------
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
------

Upshot: we know that the purpose of the 14th was to protect the newly freed blacks from criminal attack by the proto-KKK and rogue state agents - the writings of John Bingham (primary author of the 14th) make this utterly clear. But since blacks didn't yet have the vote (that was the 15th Amendment), the 14th transformed the 2nd from a political right to a personal right in addition to it's original meaning.

It's not just us "gunnies" that have figured this out. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote of it extensively (including quotes from Bingham specifically saying that the 14th will create a black right to arms) in his 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" - Amar is VERY Liberal (in the modern degraded sense) and didn't like where his findings took him! Halbrook figured out the same thing in 1984 ("That Every Man Be Armed").

Yet the US Supreme Court starting with the infamously racist 1875 Cruikshank case has pretended not to know what the 14th's "privileges and immunities" are and has ignored that clause ever since.

Calling for it's restoration is NOT radical at all.

For more info and complete links to these cases and more:

http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

Jim

seansean
January 2, 2006, 11:05 PM
OK, here's the situation. Hugh is RIGHT in that in order to fully connect the 2nd Amendment to personal defense, you need to invoke the 14th Amendment.

Hugh is dead wrong in saying that it's "radical" to do so.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, the idea of banning personal defense guns was considered ludicrous. As best we can tell, the main thrust of the 2nd was to ensure that the most radical form of arms-bearing was protected: the right of groups of people to band together for armed defense when necessary.

This idea comes from how the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the second provision of which that granted rights to individual Englishmen said:

-------
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
-------

The most common way this got violated was with laws that prevented armed groups. This was and remains a serious concern and armed groups are the most radical form of arms-bearing possible, as shown in WA and AZ state RKBA clauses (same language):

-------
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
-------

That aside, it's possible to characterize the 2A as a "political right" similar to the right to jury duty and voting, and assigned at the time to the same group (basically white males).

Flash forward to the time of the Civil War and right afterwards.

Blacks recieved freedom with the 13th Amendment but didn't get equal protection or citizenship. Those were still denied by the 1856 Dred Scott decision, which basically said that since America had always been a racist nation even in colonial times and was a racist nation at the time of the founding, racist laws (not just pro-slavery laws) were legal. The decision was legally correct, morally reprehensible.

A portion of the Scott decision read:

------
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them [blacks] from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. [emphasis added]
------

Note the phrase "privileges and immunities" - it is used in Scott over 30 times and is fully defined in context as "the Bill Of Rights plus the traditional rights of free Englishmen" - note how in this paragraph, the right to "enter every other state...without pass or passport" is included, something NOT seen in the US Bill Of Rights.

The 14th Amendment is an interesting document. It gives blacks various civil rights but NOT political rights (such as voting and jury service). In this sense it basically relegates black males to the legal status of white women of the time.

Yet it bars states from denying blacks "the privileges and immunities of US citizenship" which per the US Supreme Court in Scott includes the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went":

------
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
------

Upshot: we know that the purpose of the 14th was to protect the newly freed blacks from criminal attack by the proto-KKK and rogue state agents - the writings of John Bingham (primary author of the 14th) make this utterly clear. But since blacks didn't yet have the vote (that was the 15th Amendment), the 14th transformed the 2nd from a political right to a personal right in addition to it's original meaning.

It's not just us "gunnies" that have figured this out. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote of it extensively (including quotes from Bingham specifically saying that the 14th will create a black right to arms) in his 1998 book "The Bill Of Rights" - Amar is VERY Liberal (in the modern degraded sense) and didn't like where his findings took him! Halbrook figured out the same thing in 1984 ("That Every Man Be Armed").

Yet the US Supreme Court starting with the infamously racist 1875 Cruikshank case has pretended not to know what the 14th's "privileges and immunities" are and has ignored that clause ever since.

Calling for it's restoration is NOT radical at all.

For more info and complete links to these cases and more:

http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

Jim

Great post. For me, it was a link to Clayton Cramer's "racist roots of gun control" that educated me on this subject, and prompted me to buy a gun and get a CCW. I'm a black male, and I've lived in blue states my whole life (CT, NY, NJ, now CA) so I'd been slightly anti, but mostly indifferent to gun control issues. Clayton Cramer showed me how ignorant I was, not only about RKBA, but my own people's history. It also made my mad, because I realized how many lies I'd been told, and how narrow my worldview was. This whole subject has opened my eyes quite a bit.

Jim March
January 3, 2006, 02:02 AM
That article of mine, "A Practical Guide To Race And Gun Control" was written as a sort of "sequel" to Clayton's article, and was reviewed for accuracy by Clayton prior to publication.

If you REALLY want to dig into this, start with Amar's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300082770/qid=1136267875/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9488851-7196768?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

This is the "advanced course" once you've understood where Clayton was coming from.

seansean
January 3, 2006, 01:08 PM
That article of mine, "A Practical Guide To Race And Gun Control" was written as a sort of "sequel" to Clayton's article, and was reviewed for accuracy by Clayton prior to publication.

If you REALLY want to dig into this, start with Amar's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300082770/qid=1136267875/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-9488851-7196768?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

This is the "advanced course" once you've understood where Clayton was coming from.

Thanks, I'll stop by borders and grab it when I get a chance...and I'm gonna read your article right now...

If you enjoyed reading about "The Best 2nd Amendment Article Ever?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!