Thursday, September 19, 2013

Youth Assailed by False Interpretation of Second Amendment

When the Left lost in the two key Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v.Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, both of which affirmed the actual meaning of the second amendment, they promptly went to work to create a generation of Americans who have no idea of what that amendment means.

The idea is of course plainly insidious but effective; ignore both the words of amendment itself and the landmark court cases and pretend that it only says what you want it so say. In time, Americans (committed researchers, historians, and lawyers excepting) will have no knowledge of a crucial right of theirs at all and will react to citations of those two cases as if the speaker is using a different language .

High schools across the United States are issuing textbooks that falsely assert that the second amendment only applies to the state militia. The interpretations of the Supreme Court are treated as if they do not exist.

-From The Blaze but also in Breitbart:

"The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,” the definition in the book, “United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination,” which acts as a study guide for the Advanced Placement U.S. history test, reads.

I hold the the People cannot run around putting out these fires. We may well need to effect a break between the two versions of the United States. The Left will not stop until they have polluted the hearts and minds of enough of us to provide support for a new Constitutional Convention, one that will have the result of a completely transformed United States

Marl Levin has called for Article V Conventions to try to affect needed changes before our electorate has not been utterly ruined. He makes a lot of sense - if we are not willing to make changes to protect our freedoms and reign in the Left now, our grandchildren will be overwhelmed with an electorate that has been turned into a permanent vegetative and sheeplike state and will support the end of our Republic.

I personally believe that such a convention is our last hope to save the Republic. It must be done before a full split of the nation is needed to avert the scenario that those who come after us will have to face.

-From previous posts on the purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment:

'".......The Left spent decades telling us that the second amendment, contrary to what is says, provides only for the possession of firearms for State Militias, a term which has come in Newspeak to be restricted to the National Guard.

I still can't believe how easy it is to find old articles with the internet. I recalled an article in Parade magazine* from the 80's in which Chief Justice Warren Burger, knowing fully well what the second amendment meant, instead pimped his influence to tell us that the "people" indicated the militia. Now, this would be partially true as the militia, by the meaning of the word at the time that the amendment was written (The concept is simple yet ignored today- Legislative Intent), meant all able-bodied males. Burger insidiously decided to make a play on words and apply the modern meaning militia to change the meaning of the amendment.

Burger was featured on the front cover of the magazine holding a lever-action rifle that, if my memory serves me correctly, was a Winchester Model 94. (Sorry the above link does not have the photo)

This was a dirty deed. The US Supreme Court and its individual justices have, until fairly recently, refrained from providing their opinion on laws unless a specific case is brought before them. (Sorry, I forget the name of this practice). Burger's snake-like move had the effect that he wanted. As a result of this, many people in the US would, erroneously, claim that the second amendment has been interpreted to mean the Militia (The modern meaning and contrary to the law) and that the Court had effectively ruled that the people had no such right. 

In reality, the Court had never ruled on this issue until District of Columbia v.Heller in 2008. There, faced with a literal mountainof evidence proving that those who wrote the amendment had the people in mind, the Court had no option but to rule in favor of the right to own firearms. 

Even so, the stage had been set for the collapse of the Court even at that time. Four Justices chose to ignore the evidence. The 5-4 ruling was narrow enough to make one shudder. 

*Here are just two of the Amicus Curiae briefs that provided a Noahesque flood of evidence that the Legislative Intent of the amendment included the people:

With Obama being able to make 1-3 possible appointments in his second term, a reversal ofHeller, though. is not out of the question."

".....A father in Connecticut was shocked to find that the reference material with which his kid was being taught was fraught with somewhat clever twists of the truth and outright lies concerning the right to privately owned firearms.

-Firstly, by now nothing that the Left does, especially when it comes to the malleable and impressionable minds of children, should shock anyone.

“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” it purportedly reads. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.”

Note that the writer(s) cleverly utilized the fact that in fact some individuals, such as those convicted of crimes, cannot own firearms. They also played with the fact that laws that honestly regulated ownership of firearm's have been upheld. Both of these are examples of lying by employing facts; they are clearly presented in manner that would lead the reader to believe that the courts have not upheld the second amendment (Heller v. District of Columbia, McDonald v. Chicago). They also have lied concerning the facts as most, but not every law, that was made with the purpose of regulating firearms has been upheld.

"The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.

“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”

According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.' "

These are the more patently false and insidious charges. As Washington DC is not a state, the Left had high hopes that McDonald v. Chicago would be decided in their favor. Their hopes were dashed  as the Court did absolutely apply the second amendment to the states, but this did not stop the writers from falsely claiming that it did not. Heller also put to rest the claim that no honest person ever believed; that the National Guard is the only criteria specified in the second amendment. The people are noted specifically in the amendment, and the literal mountain of evidence that was provided in amicus curiae briefs compelled the honest justices to admit that the writers never intended to restrict gun ownership to an official militia. It must also be noted that, at that time, the militia meant every male 15-16 of years or older, so the National Guard does not apply here, either."

No comments:

Post a Comment