There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.That "scholarly and judicial consensus" was a modern fiction, invented by "liberals" in the first place. Here's what William Rawle had to say about that (and if you don't know who he was, you are shorting yourself on things you should know):
No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
Now there's no doubt that on the front of modern scholarship, the conclusions of self-described "liberals" such as Levinson and Kates and Tribe has been authoritative. But some of us came to our own conclusions without benefit of law reviews. And it is also the self-described "liberals" who are currently at the forefront of the disarming of America.
Here's the thing: "Conservative" is a relative term--what you want to conserve changes depending on the time and place, so in 1776, such a person would be called a Loyalist or a Tory. "Liberal" has a meaning that, if properly applied, pertains to freedom--you'll find many observers describing Jefferson as a "Classical Liberal." The problem is, as they have with so much of our language, the Orwellian totalitarianists have co opted and perverted words to serve their ends.
Don't let them get away with that theft. Reclaim our language and the power it holds. Then we'll all be able to agree that the liberals--that would be us--are the people to be credited with saving the Second Amendment.
5 comments:
First we must understand that liberal and conservative labels are applied to two separate levels of discussion. What is societally liberal and provides for the most individual liberty is in actuality political conservatism.
What is "classic liberalism" is political conservatism, meaning that the consitution is conservatively interpreted to mean what it says. Thereby lending itself to the utmost attainable individual liberty which is by definition "classic liberalism".
A liberal interpretation of the constitution is, in fact, social conservatism, which is in and of itself diametrically opposed to political conservatism. Political liberalism (societal conservatism) is the antithesis of individual liberty (American political conservatism). Societal conservatism (political liberalism) is best left to your religious or ethical leaders who may suggest what they believe to be proper comportment of the citizen but cannot make it compulsory.
These labels have exactly the opposite meaning in America than in any other country in the world. The reason for this is simple. In every other country in the world the power resides in government, so that any loosening of government strictures against the citizen is considered a liberal development. In our country, the power according to our Constitution resides in the people so that any loosening of government strictures is considered a conservative development in that it reaffirms the meanings and intentions of the constitution.
The confusion then is that here we have two definitions of liberalism and two definition of conservatism, depending upon whether one is speaking of societal/political liberalism or conservatism. Add that confusion to the fact that each of them have opposite meanings in the rest of the world and you have a verbal double switchback. Due to ignorance and lack of education in the majority of people that is one to two turns too many for them to realize when they are being bamboozled.
Take notes, we are soon approaching a test.
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made unr a general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordnate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed toas a rstraint on both."
In other words, Feinswine etal, COME AND TAKE 'EM! WE DARE YA!
I agree with Crotalus.And I double-dare Ya's!!
Fantastic post, Straightarrow. Most of our self-titled "liberals" are in fact authoritarian socialists. Your comments should be in an "additional information" sidebar in every pol-sci textbook in the country.
And I'm so sick of "collective rights". No such term appears anywhere in the Big C, much less where individual liberties are codified. It is most notably used by Marx and his merry band of psuedo-philosophers and anti-economists. What's more, it applies to property, not people. Anyway, it was apparently only recently applied to the disarmament debate.
Want some authoritarianism? I think there should be a law that says whenever the term "collective rights" appears, it should be followed by a little cartoon image of Karl Marx with a bushy beard, and the caption, "I (heart) Communism."
Even if "collective rights" applied to "arms" and not "the right of the people", we still have the problem with confiscation as "public use", and that part about due process and compensation.
I wanted to make these points earlier, but that damn Nimrod45 is faster on the keyboard than a light varmint bullet out of a .22-250.
"Pseudo", I mean.
Post a Comment