Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Arrogance In It's Purest Form

    Let me start things off by saying I am neither a Constitutional scholar nor a Constitutional lawyer. I am however a person who believes in plain language and the K.I.S.S. principle.

    That being said, Marc Rubin from the Examiner has decided, as inferred by his articles, that he considers himself well versed enough to interpret what the Founding Fathers meant in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and that everyone else that does not see it his way is an idiot (ref. headline April 22nd article). If he had just ranted about the 2nd Amendment I would have just fobbed him off as another anti. But it was his arrogance that he, and only he, knew what the Bill of Rights said and meant.

    Here are his articles that I am referencing:
    July 13th

    April 22nd
    Please read both of these articles before returning back here. I’ll wait.


    What both articles boil down to is that Mr. Rubin says that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms. He states numerous times in both articles that while he believes individuals should be allowed to own firearms they have no constitutional right to do so. He beleives that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to make sure that the States could have their own militias (i.e. the National Guard) and that these militias would be able to use and have access to the same weapons that the armed forces of the nation have.

    Let's look at a few definitions:

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
    4. A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government .

    The definition of militia has not changed since the Constitution was written, and it is still considered all able-bodied men, between the ages of 17-45. Even under the Militia Act of 1956, its definition still holds with the addition of the 2 separate classes of militia, the organized and unorganized. Mr. Rubin's idea that the militia is now the National Guard is partially correct, but he fails to recognized the unorganized militia. Currently the National Guard is just a State subset of the Active Army.

    At that time a militia had started the overthrow of the government. Later on standing armies were established, but all men from 17-45 were expected to be able to pick up arms and defend the country when needed. The Framers originally did not want a standing army during peacetime because of the experience with the British rulers. But they wanted to have the populace ready to defend against any enemies, both foreign and domestic. They didn't want the newly freed people to be unable to defend themselves should the time occur.

    1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
    2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
    3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
    4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
    The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" (Thomas Jefferson).
    6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.

    Mr. Rubin also contends that when the Framers use the term "people", they are talking about the group rights of the states, not the individual. His proof is that within the Bill of Rights, the Framers used the terms person and people to distinguish between individual and state rights. If that was so, then the 1st Amendment does not allow an individual to peaceably assemble and the 10th Amendment would make no sense as it delegates the powers not given specifically to the federal government to the States and to the people.

    According to the dictionary the plural of person is either persons or people. The Framers obviously had a fairly good education for their time and I would assume had a better than average command of the English language. Under these context the sentences do not sound correct if you use the word "person" to denote singular or "persons" for group rights.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    To me the phrase seems simple. Because we want the United States to remain free, the people have the right to own arms, to be able to defend the nation if neccesary.

    "Well that means they couldn't use them for personal defense, or hunting, or just target shooting."

    Actually the Constitution says:

    14th Amendment: 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.

    That little statement tells me that the State cannot make any laws that would allow a person to be harmed or deprive them of the means to protect

    Also, Mr Rubin, the last time I checked handguns were used by the armed forces in pretty much every country that has an army. Heck, that also means the so called "assault weapons" are considered military arms by the anti-gun proponents.

    Also your idea that there should be mandatory firearms training is good on the face, but saying that licensing drivers cuts down on accidents is just not borne out by the statistics. No matter the requirements, there is always someone that is not going to follow the rules and hurt themselves or others, whether with a car or a firearm. You just can't regulate stupidity.

    Mr. Rubin, I do hope you mean that you are pro-gun and believe that people should be able own and use firearms. Unfortunately from your logic in your articles, I can't sincerely believe it. Especially your elitist attitude that only you and a few others actually know what the Constitution means and that the U.S. Supreme Court and any other court that interperts the 2nd Amendment as an individual right are wrong and are idiots for thinking that way.

    As for Sotomayor's rulings on any gun rights cases, the only one I could find was the New York case, Maloney v. Cuomo. Although we don't know whether she wrote the majority opinion, we do know that she agreed with it. And since this ruling has not been appealed as of yet, we do not know for certain if it would be upheld or not, even though Mr. Rubin assumes it would.

    h/t to Sharp as a Marble for pointing these articles out.