Monthly Archives: January 2017
“God Bless The USA” by Lee Greenwood
One of the things that bothers me about our modern society is that if we ever had the ability to effectively debate, we have lost it. Ideally, debate should be both sides presenting their side in a rational way—rationally, not emotionally, I want to make that clear. There is a time to be emotional, of course, but when you are in the grip of strong emotions is not the best time to make important decisions. Think of the biggest mistakes you have made—wasn’t it when you were in the grip of some powerful emotion, or when you were “in your feelings”? So passionate emotionalism renders debate ineffective. Debate should be both parties calmly putting forth their viewpoints, not interrupting the other when they are putting forth their viewpoints, and then finding common ground to come to a third point of view. Here is a good example of how strong emotions come in to cloud effective debate and cut off the possibility of a solution acceptable to both sides.
The Debate over the Right to Bear Arms
This debate started with a Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States v. Cruikshank 1876
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Wikipedia: read the entry here:
So what was it about United States v. Cruikshank that caused the Supreme Court of that era to rule as though the 2nd amendment didn’t exist, making the claim that the right to bear arms was not granted by the Constitution? Let’s look at what was behind that case, please read the following carefully, notice that this was not just whites attacking blacks, this was white Democrats attacking and killing black Republicans.
United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case arose during the Reconstruction Era from the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election which was hotly disputed, and led to both major political parties certifying their slates of local officers. At Colfax, Louisiana, tensions climaxed in the Colfax massacre, in which an estimated 105 black people and 3 white people were killed. A federal judge ruled that the Republican-majority legislature be seated, but the Democrats did not accept this. Growing social tensions erupted on April 13, 1873, when an armed militia of white Democrats attacked black Republican freedmen, who had gathered at the Grant Parish Courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana, to resist an attempt of Democratic takeover of the offices.
You can read more about this controversial ruling here:
The Supreme Court then, as they do now, was attempting to reinterpret the Constitution in light of the era, and their own biases. That hasn’t changed, neither has the Democrat party, they are the main ones trying to take away the right to bear arms. If that hasn’t changes, than neither has their attitude towards minorities.
“Don’t Tread on Me” Metallica
Next post: To Carry or Not to Carry Pt.2
Continuing with this series of posts studying the book of Proverbs, let’s move on to chapter two. In this chapter, King Solomon continues to extol the virtues of wisdom, and specifically, to keep a man from committing adultery.
I apologize that I wasn’t able to find a version of this song without commercials, I could have used one with just the lyrics, but I felt it was important to see the video that goes with this song: